1. The defendant shall restore the real name of the plaintiff with respect to each real estate listed in the attached list 2 through 4.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. According to the Land Survey Division drawn up during the Japanese Occupation Period, the F, who resides in Gyeonggi-gun E on September 10, 1913 (Seoul-gun, Gyeonggi-do, and Gyeonggi-do 1,235) stated as follows: (a) on September 10, 1913; and (b) on October 15, 1913, F, who resides in Gyeonggi-gun E, Gyeonggi-do 1,381, respectively.

B. After that, through the name of administrative district, land category change, procedures for conversion into area, procedures for division, etc., the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table Nos. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) was divided into the real estate listed in the attached Table Nos. 2 (hereinafter “instant land”) in the Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do, 1,235, and the real estate listed in the attached Table Nos. 3 and 4 of the attached Table Nos. 3 and 381 (hereinafter “instant land Nos. 3 and 4”) in the 1,381, respectively.

C. Meanwhile, F, the Plaintiff’s Chocheon-gun, was residing in Gyeonggi-do E, and died in around 1919 and succeeded to the Plaintiff’s father G’s property, and G died on February 18, 1962 and succeeded to the Plaintiff’s property solely.

As to the land of this case Nos. 1 and 2, the defendant completed the registration of initial ownership as the receipt No. 42542, Jul. 25, 1996, and as to the land of this case No. 3 and 4, the registration of initial ownership as the receipt No. 42541, Jul. 25, 1996.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 4, 7 to 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged as a whole in light of the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim and the fact finding as to the Yangju-si of this court and the purport of the entire arguments, namely, F, the Plaintiff’s assistance officer, and F, the assessment titleholder of each of the circumstances in this case, are identical to H, and the address of F, the legal domicile of F, the Plaintiff’s assistance officer, and F, the above assessment titleholder, at the time of the fact finding, are the same as Gyeonggi-do E., and at the time of the above fact finding, F and Dong were not present at the time of the above legal domicile, the Plaintiff’s assistance officer F and F.